tion of the Text. For the Jews, tho' they have generally put the Reading, AS A LYON into the Text, (which Reading of the MASORITES (9) GROTIUS thinks defenfible) yet they have left the Reading, THEY PIERCED, in the Text of a few Copies and in the Margin of many other Copies; and they have continued the Reading THEY PIERCED in all Copies of the Septuagint, which yet Mr. W. (r) pretends they have throughout corrupted to ferve their Purposes.

So that there is not the leaft Colour of Proof, that the Jews have corrupted any Paffages of the Old Teftament, which can be apply'd to Matters of Christianity; much lefs any Paffages cited from thence by the Apostles; but on the contrary, it seems plain by the few Inftances of JUSTIN MARTYR to support his Charge of Corruption against the Jews, that the Chriftians had fo careful an Eye upon the Old Teftament in Refpect to all Paffages, which could be ftrain'd fo as to feem to allude to Christianity (for of fuch only do the Paffages produced by JUSTIN (s) confift, notwithstanding he fays, that they exprefly declare, that JESUS, who was crucify'd, was God and Man, and was to be crucify'd and dye;) that it was impoffible for the Jews to make Alteration either in the Hebrew or Septuagint, without being found out and detected by the Chriftians. Chriftians (†) them

any

felves were abfolute Security against fuch Corruptions of the Jews. Some others indeed of the Fathers as well as JUSTIN MARTYR, did charge the Jews with maliciously corrupting the Scripture to the Prejudice of Chriftianity; but ORIGEN, JEROM, AUSTIN, and other Fathers, vindicated (u) them from that Charge; as have done divers learned (w) Moderns, who contend, that thofe Fathers, who charged the Jews with maliciously falfifying the Old Testament were mistaken in Matter, by laying too great a Strefs on the Septuagint, which was a very faulty Copy and Tranflation, and by imagining, that the Jews produced corrupted Scripture, when in their Controverfies with Chriftians they produced either the original Hebrew, or the (x) accurate and pure Verfion of AQUILA, in Oppofition

to the Septuagint.

The Jews were fo little difpofed to corrupt the Old Testament in Refpect of the Paffages cited from thence, or capable of being made Use of, in Behalf of Christianity; that AQUILA himself, tho' a Jew and a great Enemy to Christianity, cannot be juftly charged with tranflating unfaithfully any one Paffage conceived to have Relation to Christianity, as is

(u) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Teft. p. 6. Pezron Defence de l'Antiquité des Tems. p. 133. Capell. Critica Sacra. p. 2, &c. (w) Grabe De Vitiis Sept. Interp. p. 34. Clerici Hist. Ecclef. P. 525-527. Martianey Defence du Texte Hebreu. Simon Ib. P. 102-104. Capellus Ib. p. 2, 3. Rivet. N. Fuller. Glafius. Dupin. Hottenger, &c. (x) ORIGEN in Cantica. HIERON. Epift. ad Mar

Ib. Epift. ad AFRICANUM. p. 224.
cellam. Tom. 2. Col. 707. Ib. Epiftola ad Damafum.

proved by MONTFAUCON, (y) who fhews the weak arguing of all those Fathers, who charged AQUILA with fuch Unfaithfulnefs, in Respect to all the Paffages, on which they grounded their Charge; that (≈) JEROM, who had ORIGEN'S Hexapla before him, when he made his Latin Translation, generally preferr'd the Senfe of AQUILA and SYMMACHUS, as being better Interpreters than the Seventy, tho' both Jews, and Tranflators after the Rise of Christianity; and that (a) AQUILA, THEODOTION, and SYMMACHUS, tranflate the famous Paffage of HoSEAH, which St. MATTHEW applies to CHRIST'S Coming out of Egypt, exactly as St. MATTHEW does, not imitating the Tranflation of the Septuagint, which gives no literal Ground for St. MATTHEW's Application of it in the Manner he does. And indeed, I cannot imagine why the Jews of any Understanding or common Sense, should have endeavour'd the Alteration of any fuch Paffages of the Old Testament; it being a Matter of no Manner of Moment to them, but of great Mischief to them fo to do. For the Old Teftament, literally understood, not any where ferving the Purposes of Christians; and the Jews rejecting all the allegorical Reasonings and Interpretations of Chriftians; and likewife plainly feeing, that the whole Old Testament in any Copy, or however tranflated,

(y) Montfaucor, Prelim. ad Origenis Hexapla. c. 5. (z) Ib. c. 6, & 8. (a) Whilton's Efay. p. 90.

or

1

or however changed by them, was as capable of being allegorically apply'd to prove Chriftianity, as their own Vulgar Hebrew, or the Copies of the Septuagint in the Hands of Christians; there was no Senfe nor Reafon in making the few Changes charged upon them by fome Fathers; much less those vaft Changes now charged upon them by Mr. W; or indeed in making any Changes at all. And befides doing what ferved not their Purpose, the Jews would therein have been certainly detected and exposed to the juft Cenfures of Chriftians; who, as appears, watch'd them, and charged them with fuch Attempt, even without proper (b) Materials to make good the Charge. Mr. W. himself should allow the Jews to be under fome Restraints, how much foever they were difpofed to corrupt the Bible; when he can fuppofe, that (c) in the Days of JOSEPHUS, the Jews durft not make any Alteration in the facred Books, and that (d) direct Corruption was in certain Cafes by no Means practicable.

་

In fine, ORIGEN himself; one of the most zealous Chriftians that ever was; and who, by the Time wherein he lived, and by his great Learning and Ability, and by compiling his Hexapla, confifting of the Hebrew Text in Hebrew and Greek Characters, the Verfions of AQUILA, SYMMACHUS, the Seventy, and THEODOTION, in fix Columns; was the most capable of all Men to know whether

(b) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. T. p. 6. Effay. p. 220, (d) Ib. p. 238.

(c) Whifton's

the

the Jews had corrupted the Old Teftament in Respect to the Citations made from thence in Behalf of Christianity; but yet he never charged the Jews, as far as appears, with any fuch Corruptions, either in the numerous Notes, which he made on his Hexapla, or in any of his other Works; which if he had found out, he would not have fail'd to have difcover'd. And this negative Argument is the ftronger, inafmuch as ORIGEN has treated of the Jewish Corruptions of the Bible in a (e) Letter to AFRICANUS; wherein he only charges the Jews with corrupting fuch Places of their holy Books as feem'd to derogate from the Honour of their Rulers in the Eyes of the World. Whereby he should seem to fuppofe them free from all Charge of Corruption in Respect to all Paffages, wherein he, as a Christian, was too much concern'd to be filent, at a Time when he was treating of their Corruption of their holy Books in other Refpects, and That of Corruptions fuppofed by him (f) to be made by the Jews, fince the Days of the Apoftles. Nay, we are inform'd, by two (g) learned Authors, that ORIGEN has fomewhere in his Works particularly vindicated the Jews in this Matter.

(e) Origenis Epift. ad Africanum. Apud Whifton's Essay. p. 133. It is printed at the End of WETSTEIN's Edition of ORIGEN'S Dialogue against the Marcionites. (f) Apud Whifton. Ib. p. 139, 140.

(g) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Teft. p. 6. See also Glafii Philologia Sacra. p. 11.

VI, That